Perspective on magical gems

[Charlotte-ate-wilbur]

I want to address an issue with perspective on magical gems. Let me give you what I've experienced.

For the longest time magical gems were insanely abundant from towns. People were getting massive gems for massive coin output, there certainly was an issue of balance with this, however the damage of too many gems flowing into the game was already done what came next was imo an even greater disaster for balance. What came next was the towns now only give latent gems.

Now I made proposals for years trying to express the need for magical gems to be dropped in maps and I also proposed the randomization of gems from gathering tasks. My reasoning for this was to provide ways in the game for players to get small amounts of magical gems through sheer effort like hunting and gathering because someone who plays for many hours should logically have something to show for it.

I have watched as old players who have characters with have gems from the broken days complain over and over about people powergaming for gems. I want to point this out as selfish and detrimental to the game as a whole. To put this into perspective I have played a new character for about 4 years and I cannot even begin to hope to match one of these older characters, and I've been powergaming my char and my char has been buying tons of gems.

I would actually like to see the town's output of gems to be adjusted to give more than latents because of this rift. The balance of gems offered through the treasury would need fine tuned to get right, likely cap it so towns won't output gems greater than rank 3 (originally it was possible to get rank 7-8 gems)

I honestly feel many past decisions were made selfishly for specific groups and characters, now we need to acknowledge and change things. For the love of Illarion change this!

PS: If you think a fix is nerfing gems- then watch as people who spent hundreds of hours to get them leave, rather pissed.

[Charlotte-ate-wilbur]

I am of an alternate opinion that we should have a gem wipe- to wipe out all existing gems, remove weekly gem handouts from town, and have characters earn gems through hunting monsters, maps and gathering.

[Vern Kron]

Just to make sure I clearly understand what is being said here:

You would like to see less latent gems produced from towns, and more latent gems produced via maps and gathering and hunting monsters?

I am aware that currently some maps, and all gathering crafts, produce gems from time to time.

What benefit would increasing gem levels from towns have to the issue?
And how would it provide universal benefit?

Characters who "actively powergame" (use the enegine) yield benefit of increase drop rates for various actions.
Characters who are 'inactive' (play less frequently/use the engine less) have less income, but still contribute to taxes (or have done something at some point to increase their town rank).

Why is this bad?

[Kugar]

Artimer, what I understood from this post is this:

1) older players got more gems back in the day from tax gems

2) we get less now because of the change to latents

3) Poster has experienced those older players complaining that people are powergaming gems in the wild and aforementioned older players (perceived cause of the now proposed removal of gemstones from gathering actions) already have the privilege of having many gems themselves - which is a bit unfair because that's the only way to bump up the gem count and catch up ie mining/chopping and digging maps etc etc.

4) this topic is pointing out an imbalance that means newer players/characters can't reach the status of players/characters who played back in the days of bigger tax gem output (especially if the chance to get them from gathering actions is taken away) - thus poster wants an increased gem output from towns or something like that to restore a balance - although older players could still log in and benefit as well, essentially, so imo that wouldn't address the problem properly.

5) If 4 can't be done, have a gemwipe and return to old-style illarion where gems are hard to find and earned with hard work (although something like that wouldn't happen unless the Elder gods had a reason to do it -- EDIT: actually, a good explanation for this has been raised in the next post below tbh.)

Re point 4 - as far as I am aware, the most likely scenario in development currently is that if gems are taken away from gathering actions it will be replaced with alternative sources.

It's true that there is a kind of imbalance going on. People do pg their ass off in a bid to catch up to older players and so on. I'm not exactly sure what should be done about all this myself but, whatever is done, it should have the blessing of the community. I'm a fence sitter. I've a lot of gemstones myself and would be happy to approach any change with an open mind. People should have the opportunity to work toward something but it shouldn't keep them from getting involved in storylines and rp. Whatever you do, keep the outlaws in mind

[Charlotte-ate-wilbur]

I really wish to see that towns aren't so engine focused, gaining rank shouldn't be for gems it should be for rp. I also wish to see towns get all the static tools though keep the balance within their market values. This would mean that characters can act truer to themselves without having the mechanical aspect of gems in towns influencing how they roleplay their characters.

I feel that for once powerful items should be earned by playing the game somehow instead of getting handouts that can be abused.There are ways to abuse the system as it stands and there's little that can possibly be done to moderate it. Attaching gems to town ranks already poses an issue because only gm's can promote beyond rank 7 (which there's also an issue of consistency between players- for one the leader chars break the basic game rules by having multiple people play single characters).

The matter of lore- it would not be lore breaking at all for the three leaders to come together and decide to stop giving gems to citizens. Why? How has it gone so far? Jeff himself is running around with the gems of the towns like a madman.. oops, no reason to quit giving out mini-nukes or anything. I've stated before that it's not logical for leaders to freely give out weapons of mass destruction. It's like what if Americans got mini-nukes for their tax returns, what could go wrong?

I really wish that towns were entirely roleplay focused, with no significant engine gain besides crafting stations and walls. Items that increase your character's power should be earned by playing the game and doing something. I feel it should be absolutely in no way influenced by a gm in any fashion. How gems are earned can be creatively thought about. Perhaps offer weekly bounties based on a selected profession. If you choose this weeks bounty as a carpenter you would get an order for a carpentry task (possibly based on the char's level) accomplish it and get gems. A standard 2-4 gems per bounty. Right there is a way for leaders to give gems to citizens-by earning it. Also if earning gems are reworked in this fashion- it still doesn't affect lore at all!

Edit: Story reason for a gem wipe, The Witch King returns with newer alien powers from the dimension he was sent to, leeching the power of all the lesser gems of the lands. Hell-bent on revenge against the three leaders for halting his conquest.

[Korwin]

I don't have any strong feelings about adjusting the output of gems, as suggested in your first post, but I am not a fan of removing the tax system, as proposed in your second.

I agree that the entrenched power of old characters is a strong disincentive to creating new ones. I agree that gems are so important that a character is simply not competitive without them. I agree that this makes it very difficult for outlaw characters to compete. I agree with a lot of your premises and conclusions, but I remain a fan of the tax system.

Taking gems as a proxy for power, I don't think they should be directly tied to how many hours a player has spent collecting gems. I like that a character can still be relevant without forcing the player to grind.

I think the tax system is actually quite clever, as it rewards a wider variety of actions beyond spending a lot of hours collecting gems. Mechanics should support the RP, and I think this one largely does.

[Brightrim]

I've for a long time been of the belief that increased gem income from town ranks should be capped at rank 7. What this would mean is that player leaders would not get more gems than the highest possible rank achieved via engine, which is usually a requirement to have to become a player leader to begin with. I'm mostly of this opinion because I have seen some players do anything they can to become a player leader, become one, and then just stop playing; only logging on for gem days, until they get booted from the position. Even if that was not the case, I also believe there should be no advantage akin to increased gem gains for player leaders as they should be motivated by the RP and not some other influence, if they want to become one.

However I think wiping gems and putting it all onto things that need to be grinded via engine; is a horrible idea. This punishes RPers and promotes PGing. While we've always had many PGers and a few who even focus solely on it, we have also always had several people who only purely RP without touching the grinding side of the game. Even if those people wouldn't have much use for gems, selling the ones they get to those who do has always been a good way for such things as rent money that they would otherwise have to grind for. Though that is the more extreme case, there are also plenty of people who have leveled some fighting skills and need gems for armour, that do not do any grinding outside of that as they only leveled it for RP-sake to play a warrior or the likes.

Finally, I see no reason why it is wrong for older characters to have more gems. Playing actively should be rewarded, and that does not mean just grinding as that is not what this game is about. If that makes it impossible for new players to be competitive, though I frankly do not see the reason why a freshly skilled new character should be able to defeat a character who is a renowned warrior that has been around for years, then the gems just need balancing.

[Katharina Brightrim]

I disagree with a gem-wipe as well, I don't see a reason. Of course older chars who paid more taxes over time got more gems as tax-return. I would also like to point out that the gems do not only have combative effects, they are also used in tools. And honestly, after we got a change in how quality is determined, this is a fair way to make chars who work on one craft for most of their lives 'better' than chars who started crafting the same craft a few days/weeks ago. Balance is fine, supporting new players to allow them a quicker entrance into the game is fine as well. But making the progress chars made over years(!) void is a very bad idea, and I say that as somebody who does not really care about how many gems my char has, losing them - being set back by a lot of time - would suck hard.

As for the IG-logic behind the leaders handing out gems: It makes perfect sense that Rosi, the Archmage and the Don want their citizen to be as strong and as capable as possible, for them to be able to defend their realms. Sure, some will abuse the power of those gems to turn them against their owners, but with that logic, smiths could not sell weapons, alchemists could not sell potions and so on. Everything can land in the wrong hands and everything can be twisted into something harmful, so why would the leaders stop handing out gems because they made all their way to villains like Jefferson?



Oh and I agree with Brightrim, cap gem-output at rank 7, player-leader chars don't need an additional gem-boost imo.

[HolyKnight]

Devs & Estralis please pay close attention to this thread, this is a very important and sensitive topic to players.

Finding a solution and a proper change or tweak has been needed for years. I implore you not to make any changes without a broad input from the Illarion community.

First, let me just address the elephant in the room. There a lot of players in Illarion that like PvP and creating competitive warriors. The gem system configuration and some imbalances along the way made that a grind for the ages. Also along the way, IMO, we lost a lot of casual warriors and set the future generation of competitive warriors at an impossible disadvantage.

Three major imbalances I find in the system:

• Infinite potential: The exponential mathematical, impossible to obtain even in a human lifetime, design will ALWAYS favor old active players.
• Flawed Gem Output: By not removing these gems the exponential gap for competition only widened giving the advantage to a very small sect of players.
• Latents Only: The above coupled with the permanent tweak for latents leaves younger POs "never" able to be on par with the older crowd so long as the older crowd stays active.

My proposal:

• Find a PvP cap for the six town gems (a challenging but not impossible cap, perhaps the % boni of having all slights or moderates in armors and weapons).
  • I am sure someone from the staff could come up with a mathematical formula as well. Rank 7, 2 IRL years worth of gems or something...
• Once the player reached the cap, what to do with the excess gem output? I think it would be logical to share the wealth, once their cap was reached what advantage could they find over a rival? More compatriots seems the natural choice.
  • Spreading the wealth becomes less risky if a PO suddenly stops playing, since you did not reward another player with gems at the loss of your infinite grind.
• Now to the final point, "rewarding" by RP. Instead, of the focus on hording town or gathered gems to get the one-on-one advantage over your enemy, instead turn toward the focus of rewarding players for "building" something.
  • Unlock the last gem- the diamond, consider it a hero stone, with a IRL rot-cycle. It can only be summoned by having a group and can only go to one player. That player cannot use it again for a set amount of IRL days or months.
    • Helps support the party raid system we are striving toward.
    • Gives older and newer POs a real reason to influence and gain support from others as well as share their gems without nerfing themselves.
    • Is not an infinite insurmountable advantage.

[Kugar]

A well thought out proposal.

Find a PvP cap for the six town gems (a challenging but not impossible cap, perhaps the % boni of having all slights or moderates in armors and weapons).

But I would cap the PvP at average. It's still hard and lengthy to attain for people who like working toward stuff and anything lower would be too easy for new players to catch up imo. And anything above average is barely noticeable in PvP anyway. EDIT - although I'm probably missing the point entirely and maybe moderates would be better?

Also

Oh and I agree with Brightrim, cap gem-output at rank 7, player-leader chars don't need an additional gem-boost imo.

Making it so nobles (or equivalent) don't get more gems than a knight (or equivalent) would gain support, I think, since people don't like the whole 'gm picks the people who get highest gems' thing.

All theoretical of course. But if that's the way this thing went, that's my two cents.

[Charlotte-ate-wilbur]

One more thing I would like to add though I don't know how it can be done technically..

Is there a way to track gems via dev tools?

Currently there's nothing stopping someone from funneling gems from alts to their main characters. If magical gems continue to be issued through town taxes, I think it's important to find a method to moderate this fact.

[Katharina Brightrim]

Currently there's nothing stopping someone from funneling gems from alts to their main characters.

Yes, there is.

https://illarion.org/illarion/us_rules.php#charmixing

[Drathe]

Don't touch my gems, its the only reason I log in these days, to get a few gems from the tax. (Not that I can find anyone to trade them with :/ )

[Kugar]

^^^^

I've been nonchalant but frankly I'm starting to lean toward favoring Eli's proposal. Maybe a moderate gem cap is the way to go? Build your char up in a reasonable timescale, build your guild, spread the wealth. Everyone is happy and there is no superhumans. Work together and make some fun moments together in this multiplayer experience. I mean, I get the argument: it's an rp game guys, chill. Have you met gamers? Gamers like to compete. That's just the way things are. It can be done with the engine and backed up with a good story - nothing wrong with that. These two have the possibility to coexist and should do so. This is an rp game but it's also a game. Playing to win is not the right way to go, I agree with the sentiment. Engine field battles should be agreed by both sides and we've already got rules in place for other engine attack scenarios. It's just finding some kind of balance where hardcore roleplayers/ hardcore gamers can meet in the middle. Illarion aims to build up its player base and help gamers from all walks of life integrate - not flush them out.

[*]Too much potential for players to not make decisions for their character but instead do so on engine based stuff - for eg: Milking gems from towns and switching towns to get the next set. How can you make a town thrive if everyone is playing pinball with their chars? In theory, if there's an end in sight for people in building their char up, more people will play this game and thus more people to exchange gemstones with.

[*]Not enough conflict rp - what's the point in having engine-based field battles or blood feuds between heroes and villains if there's such a huge gap because of problems with gemstones? What's even the point of PvP? The current situation creates an elite few (myself being one of the lucky ones) and everyone else can bow before them. That kind of game design has a very low potential to gain more players.

[*]People only log in for gems until they have enough, then play their char as they like.

Sure, you can disagree with how people want to play Illarion. Some think it should all be roleplayed text battles and others want to use the tools that the devs gave them to fight. It's find a balance. We don't need an elite and it's not really beneficial. Leaders should lead with their epic roleplay and not their gemcount. It's become a trend that the ones benefiting most from the way things are want it to stay exactly how it is. Time to take a step back and think of the greater good m'thinks.

[Charlotte-ate-wilbur]

Currently there's nothing stopping someone from funneling gems from alts to their main characters.

Yes, there is.

https://illarion.org/illarion/us_rules.php#charmixing

You are correct- now tell me how this can be moderated.

We all know this is against the rules- Yet I have a rather slinking feeling that more people do it than we realize, and there's literally nothing to be done about it. I'm suggesting some investment into moderation if the general consensus is to keep gem rewards from tax return. As I've stated in one of my previous posts that removal of gems from taxes removes this possibility of abuse.

I feel that for once powerful items should be earned by playing the game somehow instead of getting handouts that can be abused.There are ways to abuse the system as it stands and there's little that can possibly be done to moderate it. Attaching gems to town ranks already poses an issue because only gm's can promote beyond rank 7 (which there's also an issue of consistency between players- for one the leader chars break the basic game rules by having multiple people play single characters).

All too often I see new features get shot down because of the potential for abuse- why are we not focused on the potential for abuse that already exists.

Lets not focus too much on a gem wipe if thats not what is wanted- why can't we instead look at some of the other options presented? I did make several suggestions to which the only responses are rather emotional ones about ONE of the options presented. How about contributing to the ideas presented and providing or expanding upon other options? I'm trying to discuss options on how to approach much needed change, there has been discussion about major change and how to do it, if you are not someone who is a part of development then you should use the forum to express your perspective and ideas. The dev team look at these forums and take what we say into consideration- so lets stop getting threatened by a gem wipe and suggest an alternative or expand upon one of the other ones presented please.

[Kugar]

Making it so nobles (or equivalent) don't get more gems than a knight (or equivalent) would gain support, I think, since people don't like the whole 'gm picks the people who get highest gems' thing.

Just as a side note - we should all be careful when talking about the potential for a GM to sway favor to particular players (by raising them in rank) because Slightly has been nothing but good to us and this community. If biasm is alleged to have happened in the past or, if something like that has the potential to happen in the future with a new GM, then we shouldn't get too caught up with that idea. What I was pointing out here was the perceived unfairness of getting more gems as a noble (or equivalent) because I've spoken to players who see this as an issue - they perceive these chars as being placed on a pedestal with higher gemcount and thus have an engine advantage over everyone else (although, the requirement for such players to get into said positions is to make a lot of regular player quests and stay active as a leader - so it's a matter of opinion if the reward is fair or not). In hindsight, I should have elaborated

[Tyan Masines]

I comment on this only since I have raised similar concerns about gems in the past and it is good to see the same problems still appear to bother people, or rather, it is bad.
I would generally second HolyKnight's ideas in his post above, a general cap would have an immediate effect that could at least be tested for a while, imho. There is a skill cap of 100. Why is there no reasonable gem cap? I understand that gems were probably designed as the super-late-game challenge for players having achieved everything else, but this gain does not outweight the damage it is causing.

My main arguments have already been mentioned here as well by other people:

• Infinite potential: The exponential mathematical, impossible to obtain even in a human lifetime, design will ALWAYS favor old active players.

[*]Not enough conflict rp - what's the point in having engine-based field battles or blood feuds between heroes and villains if there's such a huge gap because of problems with gemstones? What's even the point of PvP? The current situation creates an elite few (myself being one of the lucky ones) and everyone else can bow before them. That kind of game design has a very low potential to gain more players.

Gems appear to have the effect of self-stacking over time. A part of this effect is effort or motivation based. People having a lot of gems are more successful (or, perhaps, appear more successful to others) and thus stick around. This is not the only reason to stick around the game, of course, but surely one of them.

The other side of the coin is time based. Older chars tend to have more gems, while new chars have none. Now, we cannot blame a PO for sticking around with their character over a long period of time. It is important for the game to have some old characters. But also, we cannot blame newer characters for wanting to step up the gem ladder more quickly. There has to be balance: The game needs an equal share of new characters and old characters, at all times, to thrive.

I'm writing characters, not players, for a reason. Recruiting and keeping around new players is a much more difficult thing, but if any old player perhaps has a good idea for a new character and discards it because said character, albeit adding interesting story to the game, because he/she would never be able to compete with others in a reasonable amount of time, then we have already lost the fight.

[Drathe]

Just a generic question but out of curiosity, would you really all want to ban a player for swapping gems to an alt that took them years, Years to acquire?

[Katharina Brightrim]

Yes. Unless allowed by a GM.

[HolyKnight]

Drathe, Those are the rules. Given the RL time it takes to acquire these devil gems I would very much like there to be a way to officially handle this situation. I think it is out of scope for this topic but think it is worthy to make a new one.